Auto-segmentation of Adult-Type Diffuse Gliomas: Comparison of Transfer Learning-Based Convolutional Neural Network Model vs. Radiologists

IF 2.9 2区 工程技术 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
{"title":"Auto-segmentation of Adult-Type Diffuse Gliomas: Comparison of Transfer Learning-Based Convolutional Neural Network Model vs. Radiologists","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10278-024-01044-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Segmentation of glioma is crucial for quantitative brain tumor assessment, to guide therapeutic research and clinical management, but very time-consuming. Fully automated tools for the segmentation of multi-sequence MRI are needed. We developed and pretrained a deep learning (DL) model using publicly available datasets A (<em>n</em> = 210) and B (<em>n</em> = 369) containing FLAIR, T2WI, and contrast-enhanced (CE)-T1WI. This was then fine-tuned with our institutional dataset (<em>n</em> = 197) containing ADC, T2WI, and CE-T1WI, manually annotated by radiologists, and split into training (<em>n</em> = 100) and testing (<em>n</em> = 97) sets. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was used to compare model outputs and manual labels. A third independent radiologist assessed segmentation quality on a semi-quantitative 5-scale score. Differences in DSC between new and recurrent gliomas, and between uni or multifocal gliomas were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney test. Semi-quantitative analyses were compared using the chi-square test. We found that there was good agreement between segmentations from the fine-tuned DL model and ground truth manual segmentations (median DSC: 0.729, std-dev: 0.134). DSC was higher for newly diagnosed (0.807) than recurrent (0.698) (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and higher for unifocal (0.747) than multi-focal (0.613) cases (<em>p</em> = 0.001). Semi-quantitative scores of DL and manual segmentation were not significantly different (mean: 3.567 vs. 3.639; 93.8% vs. 97.9% scoring ≥ 3, <em>p</em> = 0.107). In conclusion, the proposed transfer learning DL performed similarly to human radiologists in glioma segmentation on both structural and ADC sequences. Further improvement in segmenting challenging postoperative and multifocal glioma cases is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Imaging","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digital Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01044-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Segmentation of glioma is crucial for quantitative brain tumor assessment, to guide therapeutic research and clinical management, but very time-consuming. Fully automated tools for the segmentation of multi-sequence MRI are needed. We developed and pretrained a deep learning (DL) model using publicly available datasets A (n = 210) and B (n = 369) containing FLAIR, T2WI, and contrast-enhanced (CE)-T1WI. This was then fine-tuned with our institutional dataset (n = 197) containing ADC, T2WI, and CE-T1WI, manually annotated by radiologists, and split into training (n = 100) and testing (n = 97) sets. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was used to compare model outputs and manual labels. A third independent radiologist assessed segmentation quality on a semi-quantitative 5-scale score. Differences in DSC between new and recurrent gliomas, and between uni or multifocal gliomas were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney test. Semi-quantitative analyses were compared using the chi-square test. We found that there was good agreement between segmentations from the fine-tuned DL model and ground truth manual segmentations (median DSC: 0.729, std-dev: 0.134). DSC was higher for newly diagnosed (0.807) than recurrent (0.698) (p < 0.001), and higher for unifocal (0.747) than multi-focal (0.613) cases (p = 0.001). Semi-quantitative scores of DL and manual segmentation were not significantly different (mean: 3.567 vs. 3.639; 93.8% vs. 97.9% scoring ≥ 3, p = 0.107). In conclusion, the proposed transfer learning DL performed similarly to human radiologists in glioma segmentation on both structural and ADC sequences. Further improvement in segmenting challenging postoperative and multifocal glioma cases is needed.

成人型弥漫性胶质瘤的自动分割:基于迁移学习的卷积神经网络模型与放射医师的比较
摘要 脑胶质瘤的分割对于定量评估脑肿瘤、指导治疗研究和临床管理至关重要,但非常耗时。我们需要全自动的多序列磁共振成像分割工具。我们使用公开的数据集 A(n = 210)和 B(n = 369)开发并预训练了一个深度学习(DL)模型,其中包含 FLAIR、T2WI 和对比度增强(CE)-T1WI。然后用我们的机构数据集(n = 197)进行微调,该数据集包含 ADC、T2WI 和 CE-T1WI,由放射科医生手动标注,并分成训练集(n = 100)和测试集(n = 97)。戴斯相似系数(DSC)用于比较模型输出和人工标注。第三位独立的放射科医生以半定量的 5 级评分来评估分割质量。新发和复发胶质瘤之间以及单灶或多灶胶质瘤之间的 DSC 差异采用 Mann-Whitney 检验进行分析。半定量分析采用卡方检验进行比较。我们发现,微调 DL 模型的分段与地面实况人工分段之间有很好的一致性(DSC 中位数:0.729,std-dev:0.134)。新诊断病例的 DSC 值(0.807)高于复发病例(0.698)(p < 0.001),单病灶病例的 DSC 值(0.747)高于多病灶病例(0.613)(p = 0.001)。DL 和人工分割的半定量得分没有显著差异(平均值:3.567 vs. 3.639;93.8% vs. 97.9% 得分≥3,p = 0.107)。总之,在对结构和 ADC 序列进行胶质瘤分割时,所提出的迁移学习 DL 与人类放射科医生的表现相似。在分割具有挑战性的术后和多灶胶质瘤病例方面还需要进一步改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Digital Imaging
Journal of Digital Imaging 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
6.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Digital Imaging (JDI) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SIIM). JDI’s goal is to enhance the exchange of knowledge encompassed by the general topic of Imaging Informatics in Medicine such as research and practice in clinical, engineering, and information technologies and techniques in all medical imaging environments. JDI topics are of interest to researchers, developers, educators, physicians, and imaging informatics professionals. Suggested Topics PACS and component systems; imaging informatics for the enterprise; image-enabled electronic medical records; RIS and HIS; digital image acquisition; image processing; image data compression; 3D, visualization, and multimedia; speech recognition; computer-aided diagnosis; facilities design; imaging vocabularies and ontologies; Transforming the Radiological Interpretation Process (TRIP™); DICOM and other standards; workflow and process modeling and simulation; quality assurance; archive integrity and security; teleradiology; digital mammography; and radiological informatics education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信